I'd expect that case fatality rate would significantly reduce after 60+ population (which is 90%+ of deaths) is vaccinated. However, even though more than 80% of 60+ got second dose already, case fatality rate is approximately the same. I don't have any good explanation for that.
Death usually comes 2 to 4 weeks after hospitalization which comes 1 to 2 weeks after infection. So the drop in death rates should be visible 2 to 4 weeks after the drop in hospitalizations, and should be less steep initially.
If you vaccinate more people, you would expect that the cases that present at a physician will be selected to be the most severe. If the vaccine reduces most infections to very mild or asymptomatic cases, they will not be counted in the statistics at all.
So it would make sense that introducing a broadly effective vaccine would increase the case fatality rate. (You would also expect fewer severe cases, which is the whole point.)
A functioning vaccine should affect the CFR by changing the denominator of measured cases.
I am reminded of an analogy from improvements in battlefield medicine. As battlefield protocols (on-site treatment, rapid evacuation, etc.) have become more effective, battle fatality rates have fallen. But they have been replaced by a rise in severe chronic injuries like amputations.
A good explanation is that the vaccine is not working. ( people are in denial)
I looked at the Pfizer numbers and my conclusion is the it's doing nothing.
Remember that hospitalizations take at least 2-3 weeks post infection to occur, and that you don’t see protection from the first dose for at least five days or so.
So you’d expect hospitalizations to lag 18-26 days or so. Also the chart is not saying all those groups had vaccines: those under 60 largely haven’t been. The labels could have been clearer.
It’s just a chart of change in hospitalization by age from a starting date.
Obviously anecdotal, but my wife is a nurse and she's been hearing some frightening things about the vaccine. Young people getting it are basically bed-ridden for days and are calling out of work...one lady couldn't lift her arm anymore and is now getting physical therapy...one guy went out to dinner with his family after getting it and had complete memory loss of the entire dinner.
At what point does common sense risk to reward ratio come into play for young people?
it looks that way because it's a relative chart - exaggerates the uptick in hospitalizations of unvaccinated non-elderly people
If you toggle the 'relative' button you'll see the actual numbers - basically, hospitalization count for vaccinated elders is is decreasing, and the hospitalization of unvaccinated non-elders is slightly increasing.
I don't get it, the chart goes down after the lockdown starts, like they always have in the past year. How does it say anything about the effects of vaccination?
edit: nvm a different chart is shown when javascript is not activated
The chart shows that patients below age 60 have been hospitalized 80% more for severe Covid after vaccination.
Hard to not comment this cynically. That is bad.
Early vaccinated patients over 60 have 40% improvement. Keep in mind that the group older 60 is smaller in size compared to under 60, and the effect is smaller that adverse response in younger. Net negative.
That is hospitalisation in _regions_ where vaccination started early or late.
It does not explicitly discriminate between vaccinated people or non-vaccinated, only possibly by proxy of age.
People under the age of 35 were previously not included in the vaccination scheme.
At the same time, the two more infectious variants are spreading.
EvgeniyZh|5 years ago
corty|5 years ago
runako|5 years ago
If you vaccinate more people, you would expect that the cases that present at a physician will be selected to be the most severe. If the vaccine reduces most infections to very mild or asymptomatic cases, they will not be counted in the statistics at all.
So it would make sense that introducing a broadly effective vaccine would increase the case fatality rate. (You would also expect fewer severe cases, which is the whole point.)
A functioning vaccine should affect the CFR by changing the denominator of measured cases.
I am reminded of an analogy from improvements in battlefield medicine. As battlefield protocols (on-site treatment, rapid evacuation, etc.) have become more effective, battle fatality rates have fallen. But they have been replaced by a rise in severe chronic injuries like amputations.
whiddershins|5 years ago
This reduces the number of cases.
dennis_jeeves|5 years ago
A good explanation is that the vaccine is not working. ( people are in denial) I looked at the Pfizer numbers and my conclusion is the it's doing nothing.
it_robot|5 years ago
graeme|5 years ago
So you’d expect hospitalizations to lag 18-26 days or so. Also the chart is not saying all those groups had vaccines: those under 60 largely haven’t been. The labels could have been clearer.
It’s just a chart of change in hospitalization by age from a starting date.
jb775|5 years ago
At what point does common sense risk to reward ratio come into play for young people?
smiley1437|5 years ago
If you toggle the 'relative' button you'll see the actual numbers - basically, hospitalization count for vaccinated elders is is decreasing, and the hospitalization of unvaccinated non-elders is slightly increasing.
ad404b8a372f2b9|5 years ago
edit: nvm a different chart is shown when javascript is not activated
ImaCake|5 years ago
call_me_dana|5 years ago
throwaway_Ie8th|5 years ago
Hard to not comment this cynically. That is bad.
Early vaccinated patients over 60 have 40% improvement. Keep in mind that the group older 60 is smaller in size compared to under 60, and the effect is smaller that adverse response in younger. Net negative.
yokaze|5 years ago
It does not explicitly discriminate between vaccinated people or non-vaccinated, only possibly by proxy of age. People under the age of 35 were previously not included in the vaccination scheme. At the same time, the two more infectious variants are spreading.